Congress approved the rollback on March 28 in a 215-205 vote. The Federal Communications Commission had only approved the rules in October 2016, and they hadn't fully taken effect yet.

"A measure to roll back crucial privacy protections has crossed the finish line, and Internet users are worse off for it," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a statement emailed to BuzzFeed News. It also noted that the measure to repeal the privacy rules also bars the FCC from creating similar protections in the future.

A lot of people on Twitter were also unhappy:

Republican lawmakers opposed the original regulations before and after they passed. Telecommunications companies argued that the rules gave unfair competitive advantages to internet companies like Google and Facebook, which are allowed to track and sell data.

Democratic lawmakers have pointed out that the comparison is not entirely accurate: ISPs have the capability to monitor all unencrypted browsing, whereas companies that offer specific services and platforms have a much more limited capacity to do so.

Verizon and Comcast have not immediately responded to requests for comment. AT&T referred to a statement posted Friday on its policy blog.

"The consequences of repeal are simple: ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Charter will be free to sell your personal information to the highest bidder without your permission — and no one will be able to protect you," wrote Gigi Sohn, counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, in an op-ed on The Verge Monday.

While Americans can use free browser tools to block many types of web tracking, monitoring by internet providers is much harder to prevent. "Your ISP is in a privileged position where they can see everything," said Gillula, who has written about the "creepy" data collection that ISPs can conduct if the regulations are gutted.

"Any attempt to block the ISP from monitoring you, they have the power to override," Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel at EFF, told BuzzFeed News.

2. Compile Internet Profiles And Inject Targeted Ads

"There are major medical, financial, and legal websites — like the US Courts, for example — that are largely unencrypted. ISPs will be able to build detailed profiles of their customers — knowing when they're at vulnerable points in their lives — and sell that information to practically whomever they wish," Gaurav Laroia, policy counsel at Free Press, told BuzzFeed News. If someone is visiting a medical website, for instance, third parties can infer what illnesses they may suffer from, revealing sensitive health information.

"It's well-established that these internet companies are looking hungrily at companies like Facebook and Google; they want in on that advertising action," Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU, told BuzzFeed News. "This is an effort by them to preserve the ability to monetize people's information. And without these rules, they are going to plow forward."

3. Deploy Hidden Tracking Cookies On Our Phones

Following a 15-month investigation, the FCC settled with Verizon Wireless last year over the company's use of so called "supercookies" — tracking code that could not be deleted, which Verizon used to monitor customers' online activity without their permission.

"It didn’t matter if you were browsing in Incognito or Private Browsing mode, using a tracker-blocker, or had enabled Do-Not-Track: Verizon ignored all this and inserted a unique identifier into all your unencrypted outbound traffic anyway," the EFF's Gillula wrote. The browsing history, according to the FCC, was collected for several years without consent; Verizon and other third-party companies used it for targeted advertising.

For privacy advocates, pervasive data collection of your internet activity can be enormously invasive. "The websites you visit can indicate information about your financial life, your sexual life, your medical life, what disease you have, what diseases you might be worried you have," said Stanley.

"We don't even know what other derivative uses exist, because no one has ever had this type of information on consumers," Falcon said, referring to new types of data collection and novel forms of the sale of personal data. "That's what's most frightening."

]]>Blake Montgomeryhttps://www.buzzfeed.com/blakemontgomery/president-trump-just-repealed-landmark-internet-privacyMon, 03 Apr 2017 21:56:18 -0400His signature was the last thing between you and Comcast selling your browsing history and your location.blakemontgomerynonadult
<p><img src="https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-04/3/19/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-02/sub-buzz-23513-1491263672-1.jpg?resize=625:417" width="625" height="417" alt="" /></p>
<p><small>David Ramos / Getty Images</small></p>
<p>President Trump just repealed landmark internet privacy rules that restricted what Internet service providers (ISPs) could do with customers&#39; private information. Now, companies like <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/congress-votes-to-gut-internet-privacy-rules?utm_term=.fraRVevw7Z#.kiwYbwdmM4">Verizon, AT&amp;T, and Comcast will no longer be obligated to obtain your consent</a> before selling and sharing your data, and they don&#39;t have to notify you about what kind of data they collect.</p><p>Congress approved the rollback on March 28 in a 215-205 vote. The Federal Communications Commission had only approved the rules in October 2016, and they hadn&#39;t fully taken effect yet.<br /></p><p>"A measure to roll back crucial privacy protections has crossed the finish line, and Internet users are worse off for it," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a statement emailed to BuzzFeed News. It also noted that the measure to repeal the privacy rules <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/congress-contemplating-making-it-illegal-protect-consumer-privacy-online">also bars the FCC from creating similar protections</a> in the future.</p><h1>A lot of people on Twitter were also unhappy:</h1>
<p>Republican lawmakers opposed the original regulations before and after they passed. Telecommunications companies argued that the rules gave unfair competitive advantages to internet companies like Google and Facebook, which are allowed to track and sell data.<br /></p><p>Democratic lawmakers have pointed out that the comparison is not entirely accurate: ISPs have the capability to monitor all unencrypted browsing, whereas companies that offer specific services and platforms have a much more limited capacity to do so.</p><p>Verizon and Comcast have not immediately responded to requests for comment. AT&amp;T referred to a statement posted Friday on its <a href="https://www.attpublicpolicy.com/">policy blog</a>.</p><p>On Friday, Verizon, AT&amp;T, and Comcast all released statements assuring customers that they would respect their privacy. But <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/att-and-comcast-dont-worry-about-congress-gutting-your?utm_term=.tfnxlQZayW#.qfwXz7ORJ4">privacy advocates said these promises are misleading</a>. There are a few ISPs out there that have <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/these-isps-say-they-wont-sell-your-browsing-data?utm_term=.aab7GYNeRg#.bnd7BvA98y">pledged to never sell any of their customers&#39; information</a> to third parties. But because most Americans live in areas with only a single internet provider, they&#39;re forced to accept that company&#39;s data sharing practices if they want internet access.</p><p>Last week, my colleague Hamza Shaban&#39;s talked to privacy experts about what would happen if Trump repealed the privacy rules:</p><h1><a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/congress-votes-to-gut-internet-privacy-rules?utm_term=.ev2rQbjX1#.cnjZOQ21o">Here are three invasive things your ISP can now do with your data</a>:</h1><p><b>1. Sell Your Browsing History</b><br /></p><p>"The consequences of repeal are simple: ISPs like Comcast, AT&amp;T, and Charter will be free to sell your personal information to the highest bidder without your permission &mdash; and no one will be able to protect you," wrote Gigi Sohn, counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, in an op-ed on <a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=74679X1524629&amp;sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzfeed.com%2Fhamzashaban%2Fcongress-votes-to-gut-internet-privacy-rules&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theverge.com%2F2017%2F3%2F27%2F15073162%2Ffcc-broadband-internet-privacy-rules-congress-vote&amp;xcust=4497383%7CBFLITE&amp;xs=1"><i>The Verge</i></a> Monday.</p><p>While Americans can use free browser tools to block many types of web tracking, monitoring by internet providers is much harder to prevent. "Your ISP is in a privileged position where they can see everything," said Gillula, who has written about the "<a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=74679X1524629&amp;sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzfeed.com%2Fhamzashaban%2Fcongress-votes-to-gut-internet-privacy-rules&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2017%2F03%2Ffive-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections&amp;xcust=4497383%7CBFLITE&amp;xs=1">creepy</a>" data collection that ISPs can conduct if the regulations are gutted.</p><p>"Any attempt to block the ISP from monitoring you, they have the power to override," Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel at EFF, told BuzzFeed News.</p><p><b>2. Compile Internet Profiles And Inject Targeted Ads</b></p><p>"There are major medical, financial, and legal websites &mdash; like the US Courts, for example &mdash; that are largely unencrypted. ISPs will be able to build detailed profiles of their customers &mdash; knowing when they&#39;re at vulnerable points in their lives &mdash; and sell that information to practically whomever they wish," Gaurav Laroia, policy counsel at Free Press, told BuzzFeed News. If someone is visiting a medical website, for instance, third parties can infer what illnesses they may suffer from, revealing sensitive health information.</p><p>"It&#39;s well-established that these internet companies are looking hungrily at companies like Facebook and Google; they want in on that advertising action," Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU, told BuzzFeed News. "This is an effort by them to preserve the ability to monetize people&#39;s information. And without these rules, they are going to plow forward."</p><p><b>3. Deploy Hidden Tracking Cookies On Our Phones</b><br /></p><p>Following a 15-month investigation, the <a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=74679X1524629&amp;sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzfeed.com%2Fhamzashaban%2Fcongress-votes-to-gut-internet-privacy-rules&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F03%2F08%2Ftechnology%2Fverizon-settles-with-fcc-over-hidden-tracking.html&amp;xcust=4497383%7CBFLITE&amp;xs=1">FCC settled with Verizon Wireless</a> last year over the company&#39;s use of so called "supercookies" &mdash; tracking code that could not be deleted, which Verizon used to monitor customers&#39; online activity without their permission.</p><p>"It didn&rsquo;t matter if you were browsing in Incognito or Private Browsing mode, using a tracker-blocker, or had enabled Do-Not-Track: Verizon ignored all this and inserted a unique identifier into all your unencrypted outbound traffic anyway," the EFF&#39;s Gillula <a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=74679X1524629&amp;sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzfeed.com%2Fhamzashaban%2Fcongress-votes-to-gut-internet-privacy-rules&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2017%2F03%2Ffive-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections&amp;xcust=4497383%7CBFLITE&amp;xs=1">wrote</a>. The browsing history, according to the FCC, was collected for several years without consent; Verizon and other third-party companies used it for targeted advertising.</p><p>For privacy advocates, pervasive data collection of your internet activity can be enormously invasive. "The websites you visit can indicate information about your financial life, your sexual life, your medical life, what disease you have, what diseases you might be worried you have," said Stanley.</p><p>"We don&#39;t even know what other derivative uses exist, because no one has ever had this type of information on consumers," Falcon said, referring to new types of data collection and novel forms of the sale of personal data. "That&#39;s what&#39;s most frightening."</p>
<p><small></small></p>
nonadultnonadultnonadultThe FCC Just Blocked Privacy Protections For Comcast And Verizon Customershttps://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/fcc-just-blocked-privacy-protections-internet-providers?utm_term=4ldqpia

Brendan Mcdermid / Reuters

On Wednesday, President Trump's new Federal Communications Commission chair blocked privacy rules designed to protect customers of Comcast, Verizon, and other internet service providers from malicious hackers and data breaches.

The FCC created the sweeping new privacy rules last year to limit how broadband companies can share and sell sensitive information about you. One aspect of the rules, which would have taken effect Thursday, required broadband companies to take "reasonable" security measures to shield sensitive information like customers' social security numbers, browsing history, and geo-location data. The rules also required internet providers to contact law enforcement within seven days of a data breach, and to notify customers within 30 days.

The FCC's new chair, Ajit Pai, said the data security rules are an unfair requirement for internet providers. Rather than imposing FCC privacy rules only on broadband companies, Pai said he wants to work with the Federal Trade Commission to create a comprehensive privacy policy that applies to all online companies, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter. While these web companies have their own privacy policies, and are bound by a patchwork of state laws that mandate data breach notification, no comprehensive federal law exists that provides a national baseline for their privacy and data security practices.

While the FCC has the authority to regulate broadband providers, Pai argued that the FTC has more expertise in policing privacy violations, and is better suited to shape privacy rules that apply to broadband companies, as well as to every other online business.

"All actors in the online space should be subject to the same rules, enforced by the same agency," Pai said in a joint statement with Acting FTC Chair Maureen Ohlhausen. Trump also appointed Ohlhausen.

“The federal government shouldn’t favor one set of companies over another — and certainly not when it comes to a marketplace as dynamic as the Internet," they said. "So going forward, we will work together to establish a technology-neutral privacy framework for the online world."

Proponents of the privacy rules see this move as a blow to consumer protections, and the first step in dismantling desperately needed privacy safeguards as Americans face a barrage of data breaches.

The FCC's sole democratic commissioner (out of three), Mignon Clyburn, voted unsuccessfully to uphold the privacy rules. In her dissenting statement, she described Pai's efforts as a clumsy and disingenuous ploy. "This Order is but a proxy for gutting the Commission’s duly adopted privacy rules — and it does so with very little finesse," she said.

"With a stroke of the proverbial pen, the Federal Communications Commission — the same agency that should be the 'cop on the beat' when it comes to ensuring appropriate consumer protections — is leaving broadband customers without assurances that their providers will keep their data secure," she said.

After the privacy rules were approved last year, internet service providers including Comcast, T-Mobile, AT&T, and Cox pledged to adopt reasonable security measures and to notify customers of data breaches. But Clyburn argued that without the rules, Americans will be hard-pressed to hold these companies accountable. "What it actually does is permit providers to shift the costs for corporate negligence onto private citizens," she wrote. "If a provider simply decides not to adequately protect a customer’s information and does not notify them when a breach inevitably occurs, there will be no recompense as a matter of course."

Other critics of Pai and Ohlhausen's plan point to the limited power of the FTC to create new privacy rules. Unlike the FCC, which has broad rule-making authority, the FTC is primarily an enforcement agency; it can go after corporate law-breakers and ensure that they keep their public promises, but it can't create privacy rules that would apply to all web companies. "The FCC has a clear mandate to protect people's privacy, but the FTC has nothing like that," said Matt Wood, the policy director of Free Press.

Other portions of the privacy rules that require internet providers to get your consent before they can share sensitive information about you with a third party don't kick in until later this year. And while today's actions don't affect these opt-in privacy requirements, critics say Pai's move on data security is the first stage in halting the privacy rules entirely.

For his part, Pai said he and the FTC will work to create a uniform plan as the data security rules remain on hold. He acknowledged concerns that an absence of privacy rules may leave Americans exposed, but, he said, "It does not serve consumers’ interests to create two distinct frameworks — one for Internet service providers and one for all other online companies." No timeline was given for the rollout of the revamped privacy rules.

]]>Hamza Shabanhttps://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/fcc-just-blocked-privacy-protections-internet-providersWed, 01 Mar 2017 19:58:14 -0500The rules would have required giant internet providers to adopt reasonable security measures and notify customers when data breaches happen.hamzashabannonadult
<p><img src="https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-03/1/16/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-02/sub-buzz-28671-1488403737-2.jpg?resize=625:417" width="625" height="417" alt="" /></p>
<p><small>Brendan Mcdermid / Reuters</small></p>
<p>On Wednesday, President Trump&#39;s new Federal Communications Commission chair blocked privacy rules designed to protect customers of Comcast, Verizon, and other internet service providers from malicious hackers and data breaches.</p><p>The FCC created the <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/feds-usher-in-sweeping-new-privacy-rules-for-internet-provid?utm_term=.nyQNJm8ddE#.lj8GRVlXXj">sweeping new privacy rules</a> last year to limit how broadband companies can share and sell sensitive information about you. One aspect of the rules, which would have taken effect Thursday, required broadband companies to take "reasonable" security measures to shield sensitive information like customers&#39; social security numbers, browsing history, and geo-location data. The rules also required internet providers to contact law enforcement within seven days of a data breach, and to notify customers within 30 days.</p><p>These rules are now on hold, despite a history of massive <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/11/09/comcast-says-its-not-to-blame-after-200000-accounts-were-illegally-put-up-for-sale/?utm_term=.0bf2de0810fb">hacks</a> that targeted <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/11/09/comcast-says-its-not-to-blame-after-200000-accounts-were-illegally-put-up-for-sale/?utm_term=.0bf2de0810fb">internet providers</a>.</p><p>The FCC&#39;s new chair, Ajit Pai, said the data security rules are an unfair requirement for internet providers. Rather than imposing FCC privacy rules only on broadband companies, Pai said he wants to work with the Federal Trade Commission to create a comprehensive privacy policy that applies to all online companies, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter. While these web companies have their own privacy policies, and are bound by a patchwork of state laws that mandate data breach notification, no comprehensive federal law exists that provides a national baseline for their privacy and data security practices.</p><p>While the FCC has the authority to regulate broadband providers, Pai argued that the FTC has more expertise in policing privacy violations, and is better suited to shape privacy rules that apply to broadband companies, as well as to every other online business.</p><p>"All actors in the online space should be subject to the same rules, enforced by the same agency," Pai said in a joint statement with Acting FTC Chair Maureen Ohlhausen. Trump also appointed Ohlhausen.</p><p>&ldquo;The federal government shouldn&rsquo;t favor one set of companies over another &mdash; and certainly not when it comes to a marketplace as dynamic as the Internet," they said. "So going forward, we will work together to establish a technology-neutral privacy framework for the online world."</p><p>Proponents of the privacy rules see this move as a blow to consumer protections, and the first step in dismantling desperately needed privacy safeguards as Americans face a barrage of data breaches.</p><p>The FCC&#39;s sole democratic commissioner (out of three), Mignon Clyburn, voted unsuccessfully to uphold the privacy rules. In her dissenting statement, she described Pai&#39;s efforts as a clumsy and disingenuous ploy. "This Order is but a proxy for gutting the Commission&rsquo;s duly adopted privacy rules &mdash; and it does so with very little finesse," she said.<br /></p><p>"With a stroke of the proverbial pen, the Federal Communications Commission &mdash; the same agency that should be the &#39;cop on the beat&#39; when it comes to ensuring appropriate consumer protections &mdash; is leaving broadband customers without assurances that their providers will keep their data secure," she said.<br /></p><p>After the privacy rules were approved last year, internet service providers including Comcast, T-Mobile, AT&amp;T, and Cox pledged to adopt reasonable security measures and to notify customers of data breaches. But Clyburn argued that without the rules, Americans will be hard-pressed to hold these companies accountable. "What it actually does is permit providers to shift the costs for corporate negligence onto private citizens," she wrote. "If a provider simply decides not to adequately protect a customer&rsquo;s information and does not notify them when a breach inevitably occurs, there will be no recompense as a matter of course."</p><p>Other critics of Pai and Ohlhausen&#39;s plan point to the limited power of the FTC to create new privacy rules. Unlike the FCC, which has broad rule-making authority, the <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/ftc-chairwoman-the-tech-industry-isnt-doing-enough-to-protec?utm_term=.ik7abBoYY0#.dhV21WyDDa">FTC is primarily an enforcement agency</a>; it can go after corporate law-breakers and ensure that they keep their public promises, but it can&#39;t create privacy rules that would apply to all web companies. "The FCC has a clear mandate to protect people&#39;s privacy, but the FTC has nothing like that," said Matt Wood, the policy director of Free Press.</p><p>Other portions of the privacy rules that require internet providers to get your consent before they can share sensitive information about you with a third party don&#39;t kick in until later this year. And while today&#39;s actions don&#39;t affect these opt-in privacy requirements, critics say Pai&#39;s move on data security is the first stage in halting the privacy rules entirely.<br /></p><p>For his part, Pai said he and the FTC will work to create a uniform plan as the data security rules remain on hold. He acknowledged concerns that an absence of privacy rules may leave Americans exposed, but, he said, "It does not serve consumers&rsquo; interests to create two distinct frameworks &mdash; one for Internet service providers and one for all other online companies." No timeline was given for the rollout of the revamped privacy rules.</p>
<p><small></small></p>
nonadultNetflix Says It Will Raise Prices, Opposes Comcast-Time Warner Cable Mergerhttps://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/netflix-says-it-will-raise-prices-opposes-comcast-time-warne
The streaming video service’s CEO, Reed Hastings, made the comments in his first-quarter letter to shareholders. Netflix also said it added 4 million global subscribers for a total of 48.35 million.

Netflix reported first-quarter earnings that beat analyst expectations, but the bigger news is that the company said it plans to raise prices for subscribers and opposes Comcast's impending $45.2 billion merger with Time Warner Cable.

Regulators are in the midst of reviewing the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger, with an initial hearing held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 9 that lacked the presence of representatives from any big media companies that might be opposed to the deal because, in Senator Amy Klobucher's (D-Minn.) words, "many programmers are afraid to go public with concerns about the Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal." Shortly thereafter, Senator Al Franken wrote a letter asking Netflix executives to voice an opinion about the deal, saying the company was "uniquely positioned to gauge the risks."

"If the Comcast and Time Warner Cable merger is approved, the combined company's footprint will pass over 60 percent of U.S. broadband households, after the proposed divestiture, with most of those homes having Comcast as the only option for truly high-speed broadband," Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wrote in his first-quarter letter to shareholders. "Comcast could control high-speed broadband to the majority of American homes ... The combined company would possess even more anti-competitive leverage to charge arbitrary interconnection tolls for access to their customers. For this reason, Netflix opposes this merger."

Hastings added on an earnings Q&A webcast with analysts that if the government ends up approving the merger, it should at least force Comcast to agree to some concessions and that even though its CEO, Brian Roberts, is "incredibly thoughtful," he's not sure that Netflix wants "anyone to control half the U.S. internet."

Hastings' comments are the second blow he has dealt to Comcast after striking a deal under which Netflix would pay the aforementioned "interconnection toll" to ensure more reliable service for its customers streaming movies through Comcast. It was originally assumed that by inking the deal Comcast had made Netflix into a friend, but apparently that is not the case. In a blog post a few weeks after the deal, Hastings argued that big broadband providers should not be able to charge fees for faster and more reliable access.

After Hastings' comments became public, Comcast responded by claiming that it was actually approached by Netflix for the direct ISP connection, at the expense of wholesalers with whom Netflix had traditionally contracted. A statement released Monday by a Comcast corporate communications executive further alleged that Netflix's opposition "is based on inaccurate claims and arguments," and in rather pointed language, stated that if Netflix does not like Comcast's potential merger with Time Warner Cable, Netflix is free to use any other ISP on the market.

"Netflix is free to express its opinions. But they should be factually based," wrote Jennifer Khoury, Senior Vice President, Corporate & Digital Communications, Comcast Corporation. "And Netflix should be transparent that its opinion is not about protecting the consumer or about net neutrality. Rather, it's about improving Netflix's business model by shifting costs that it has always borne to all users of the Internet and not just to Netflix customers.

Taken together, Hastings' blog post and Monday's outright opposition to the deal makes hollow his additional comment in Netflix's shareholder letter that since signing the deal with Comcast, the cable giant "is providing a much improved Netflix experience to their broadband subscriber."

On the back of Netflix's deal with Comcast, AT&T aggressively staked out the position that it, too, should get paid an interconnection fee for carrying Netflix's heavy streaming traffic, which at times accounts for more than one-third of all internet traffic. In a March 21 blog post entitled "Who Should Pay For Netflix," Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, wrote: "There is no free lunch, and there's also no cost-free delivery of streaming movies. Someone has to pay that cost. Mr. Hastings' arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix. That may be a nice deal if he can get it. But it's not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked."

So of course Hastings smacked back at AT&T in his first-quarter letter, saying that the company's fiber-based U-verse internet service performed worse than many of its much smaller, DSL-based competitors.

"The 249 customer comments on AT&T's anti-Netflix blog post indicate that AT&T customers expect a good quality Netflix experience given how much they pay AT&T for their Internet service," Hastings wrote in a clear dig at Cicconi. "It is free and easy for AT&T to interconnect directly with Netflix and quickly improve their customers' experience, should AT&T so desire."

Jill Greenberg / Netflix

Hastings also wrote, in another surprise announcement, that Netflix plans to raise prices for certain subscribers, a move that may impact future subscriber and revenue growth. Netflix currently charges $7.99 for its streaming service, but the company has been experimenting with different price points, such as the ability to run four streams simultaneously for $11.99. When Netflix last reported earnings in January, Hastings said he hoped to offer three different pricing options for new members, but added that he was in no rush to do so and was still researching options.

On Monday, however, he disclosed that the company concluded "a one or two dollar increase, depending on the country, later this quarter for new members only" is warranted. Existing subscribers will continue to pay their current membership fees "for a generous time period," Hastings wrote. By way of example, after raising prices in Ireland last year, Netflix grandfathered in all existing subscribers to pay their current rate for a period of two years.

"These changes will enable us to acquire more content and deliver an even better streaming experience," he added.

Highlighting competitors ranging from CBS and HBO to Amazon and Yahoo, Ted Sarandos, Netflix's head of content, said of acquiring programming that the "bidding can get quite high for certain talent" and that the company is "committed to larger budget shows." Sarandos said Netflix still plans to double its budget for original programming but to keep it below 10% of its overall content spend.

Netflix released the second season of House of Cards during the quarter and, as usual, did not provide viewership figures, except to say that it "attracted a huge audience that would make any cable or broadcast network happy."

"There was a hunger audience for Season 2 versus a curious audience in Season 1," Sarandos said on the webcast. "There was a lot of pent-up demand, very early, front-weighted viewing for the launch. America was ready for more and dug in right away."

Sarandos' comments are an implied endorsement of the company's strategy of making the entire season of a show available all at once, known in industry parlance as binge-viewing. When BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield pointed out that HBO's True Detective achieved hit status with a week-by-week rollout and asked if Netflix would consider different release schedules in the future, Sarandos said it was possible.

"Our members like to watch more than one at a time, and we're going to stay focused on what our subscribers want," Sarandos said. "Maybe in the future, we roll out shows with different release models."

Netflix shares swing wildly based primarily on the strength of its subscriber addition numbers, which, in turn, speaks to the strength of its marketing, content licensing, and original programming strategy. During the first quarter, the company added 2.25 million subscribers in the U.S., bringing its total to 35.7 million, exactly as it had previously guided analysts to expect. Hastings reiterated again Monday that he thinks Netflix's subscriber base could grow to between 60 million and 90 million in the U.S. alone, which would be two to three times larger than HBO domestically.

Internationally it added 1.75 million new subscribers for a total of 12.7 million. The company is still following an aggressive international expansion plan, and expects to grow overseas subscribers in the second quarter by more than 50% over the same period last year. Netflix now derives 25% of its total streaming revenue internationally and said the overseas opportunity is so large that it eventually expects international revenue to surpass what it generates domestically. It said that its international operation "is on a path to achieve profitability this year," but that the investment required for its expansion plans will keep it running at a net loss.

Combined, Netflix ended the quarter with 48.35 million global subscribers.

The company reported $1.27 billion in the quarter and a net income of $53 million, or 86 cents per share, meeting analyst estimates on revenue and beating on net income. It said it expects to add another 1.46 million streaming subscribers next quarter, with the bulk of them, roughly 940,000, coming from overseas.

After closing the day up $2.75 to $348.49, Netflix shares surged in after-hours trading, gaining $23.01, of 6.6%, to $371.50. That's still below its 2014 high of $454.98 reached on March 4, however.

Update: This post has been updated with comments from Netflix executives on its earnings webcast and additional information from its earnings report.

]]>Peter Lauriahttps://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/netflix-says-it-will-raise-prices-opposes-comcast-time-warneMon, 21 Apr 2014 18:06:53 -0400<b>The streaming video service&#39;s CEO, Reed Hastings, made the comments in his first-quarter letter to shareholders.</b> Netflix also said it added 4 million global subscribers for a total of 48.35 million.peterlaurianonadultnonadultNetflix reported first-quarter earnings that beat analyst expectations, but the bigger news is that the company said it plans to raise prices for subscribers and opposes Comcast's impending $45.2 billion merger with Time Warner Cable.
Regulators are in the midst of reviewing the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger, with an initial hearing held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 9 that <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/the-absent-voices-in-the-room">lacked the presence of representatives</a> from any big media companies that might be opposed to the deal because, in Senator Amy Klobucher&#39;s (D-Minn.) words, "many programmers are afraid to go public with concerns about the Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal." Shortly thereafter, Senator Al Franken <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/16/5622058/al-franken-wants-netflix-ceo-perspective-on-comcast-twc-deal">wrote a letter</a> asking Netflix executives to voice an opinion about the deal, saying the company was "uniquely positioned to gauge the risks."
"If the Comcast and Time Warner Cable merger is approved, the combined company&#39;s footprint will pass over 60 percent of U.S. broadband households, after the proposed divestiture, with most of those homes having Comcast as the only option for truly high-speed broadband," Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wrote in his first-quarter letter to shareholders. "Comcast could control high-speed broadband to the majority of American homes ... The combined company would possess even more anti-competitive leverage to charge arbitrary interconnection tolls for access to their customers. For this reason, Netflix opposes this merger."
Hastings added on an earnings Q&amp;A webcast with analysts that if the government ends up approving the merger, it should at least force Comcast to agree to some concessions and that even though its CEO, Brian Roberts, is "incredibly thoughtful," he&#39;s not sure that Netflix wants "anyone to control half the U.S. internet."
Hastings&#39; comments are the second blow he has dealt to Comcast after striking a deal under which Netflix would pay the aforementioned "interconnection toll" to ensure more reliable service for its customers streaming movies through Comcast. It was originally assumed that by inking the deal Comcast had made Netflix into a friend, but apparently that is not the case. In a <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/the-regulatory-war-between-comcast-and-opponents-of-its-time">blog post</a> a few weeks after the deal, Hastings argued that big broadband providers should not be able to charge fees for faster and more reliable access.
After Hastings&#39; comments became public, Comcast responded by claiming that it was actually approached by Netflix for the direct ISP connection, at the expense of wholesalers with whom Netflix had traditionally contracted. A statement released Monday by a Comcast corporate communications executive further alleged that Netflix&#39;s opposition "is based on inaccurate claims and arguments," and in rather pointed language, stated that if Netflix does not like Comcast&#39;s potential merger with Time Warner Cable, Netflix is free to use any other ISP on the market.
"Netflix is free to express its opinions. But they should be factually based," wrote Jennifer Khoury, Senior Vice President, Corporate &amp; Digital Communications, Comcast Corporation. "And Netflix should be transparent that its opinion is not about protecting the consumer or about net neutrality. Rather, it&#39;s about improving Netflix&#39;s business model by shifting costs that it has always borne to all users of the Internet and not just to Netflix customers.
Taken together, Hastings&#39; blog post and Monday&#39;s outright opposition to the deal makes hollow his additional comment in Netflix&#39;s shareholder letter that since signing the deal with Comcast, the cable giant "is providing a much improved Netflix experience to their broadband subscriber."
On the back of Netflix&#39;s deal with Comcast, AT&amp;T aggressively staked out the position that it, too, should get paid an interconnection fee for carrying Netflix&#39;s heavy streaming traffic, which at times accounts for more than one-third of all internet traffic. In a <a href="http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/consumers-2/who-should-pay-for-netflix/">March 21 blog post</a> entitled "Who Should Pay For Netflix," Jim Cicconi, AT&amp;T&#39;s senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, wrote: "There is no free lunch, and there&#39;s also no cost-free delivery of streaming movies. Someone has to pay that cost. Mr. Hastings&#39; arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix. That may be a nice deal if he can get it. But it&#39;s not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked."
So of course Hastings smacked back at AT&amp;T in his first-quarter letter, saying that the company&#39;s fiber-based U-verse internet service performed worse than many of its much smaller, DSL-based competitors.
"The 249 customer comments on AT&amp;T&#39;s anti-Netflix blog post indicate that AT&amp;T customers expect a good quality Netflix experience given how much they pay AT&amp;T for their Internet service," Hastings wrote in a clear dig at Cicconi. "It is free and easy for AT&amp;T to interconnect directly with Netflix and quickly improve their customers&#39; experience, should AT&amp;T so desire."nonadultnonadultHastings also wrote, in another surprise announcement, that Netflix plans to raise prices for certain subscribers, a move that may impact future subscriber and revenue growth. Netflix currently charges $7.99 for its streaming service, but the company has been experimenting with different price points, such as the ability to run four streams simultaneously for $11.99. When Netflix last reported earnings in January, Hastings said he hoped to offer three different pricing options for new members, but added that he was in no rush to do so and was still researching options.
On Monday, however, he disclosed that the company concluded "a one or two dollar increase, depending on the country, later this quarter for new members only" is warranted. Existing subscribers will continue to pay their current membership fees "for a generous time period," Hastings wrote. By way of example, after raising prices in Ireland last year, Netflix grandfathered in all existing subscribers to pay their current rate for a period of two years.
"These changes will enable us to acquire more content and deliver an even better streaming experience," he added.
Highlighting competitors ranging from CBS and HBO to Amazon and Yahoo, Ted Sarandos, Netflix's head of content, said of acquiring programming that the "bidding can get quite high for certain talent" and that the company is "committed to larger budget shows." Sarandos said Netflix still plans to double its budget for original programming but to keep it below 10% of its overall content spend.
Netflix released the second season of <i>House of Cards</i> during the quarter and, as usual, did not provide viewership figures, except to say that it "attracted a huge audience that would make any cable or broadcast network happy."
"There was a hunger audience for Season 2 versus a curious audience in Season 1," Sarandos said on the webcast. "There was a lot of pent-up demand, very early, front-weighted viewing for the launch. America was ready for more and dug in right away."
Sarandos&#39; comments are an implied endorsement of the company&#39;s strategy of making the entire season of a show available all at once, known in industry parlance as binge-viewing. When BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield pointed out that HBO&#39;s <i>True Detective</i> achieved hit status with a week-by-week rollout and asked if Netflix would consider different release schedules in the future, Sarandos said it was possible.
"Our members like to watch more than one at a time, and we&#39;re going to stay focused on what our subscribers want," Sarandos said. "Maybe in the future, we roll out shows with different release models."
Netflix shares swing wildly based primarily on the strength of its subscriber addition numbers, which, in turn, speaks to the strength of its marketing, content licensing, and original programming strategy. During the first quarter, the company added 2.25 million subscribers in the U.S., bringing its total to 35.7 million, exactly as it had previously guided analysts to expect. Hastings reiterated again Monday that he thinks Netflix&#39;s subscriber base could grow to between 60 million and 90 million in the U.S. alone, which would be two to three times larger than HBO domestically.
Internationally it added 1.75 million new subscribers for a total of 12.7 million. The company is still following an aggressive international expansion plan, and expects to grow overseas subscribers in the second quarter by more than 50% over the same period last year. Netflix now derives 25% of its total streaming revenue internationally and said the overseas opportunity is so large that it eventually expects international revenue to surpass what it generates domestically. It said that its international operation "is on a path to achieve profitability this year," but that the investment required for its expansion plans will keep it running at a net loss.
Combined, Netflix ended the quarter with 48.35 million global subscribers.
The company reported $1.27 billion in the quarter and a net income of $53 million, or 86 cents per share, meeting analyst estimates on revenue and beating on net income. It said it expects to add another 1.46 million streaming subscribers next quarter, with the bulk of them, roughly 940,000, coming from overseas.
After closing the day up $2.75 to $348.49, Netflix shares surged in after-hours trading, gaining $23.01, of 6.6%, to $371.50. That&#39;s still below its 2014 high of $454.98 reached on March 4, however.
<b>Update:</b> This post has been updated with comments from Netflix executives on its earnings webcast and additional information from its earnings report.nonadult"What Is That Box?" — When The NSA Shows Up At Your Internet Companyhttps://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/what-is-that-box-when-the-nsa-shows-up-at-your-internet-comp
For nine months, this Utah ISP had a little black box in the corner, courtesy of the NSA. Its owner tells his story.

When people say the feds are monitoring what people are doing online, what does that mean? How does that work? When, and where, does it start?

Pete Ashdown, CEO of XMission, an internet service provider in Utah, knows. He received a Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) warrant in 2010 mandating he let the feds monitor one of his customers, through his facility. He also received a broad gag order. In his own words:

The first thing I do when I get a law enforcement request is look for a court signature on it. Then I pass it to my attorneys and say, "Is this legitimate? Does this qualify as a warrant?" If it does, then we will respond to it. We are very up front that we respond to warrants.

If it isn't, then the attorneys write back: "We don't believe it is in jurisdiction or is constitutional. We are happy to respond if you do get an FBI request in jurisdiction or you get a court order to do so."

The FISA request was a tricky one, because it was a warrant through the FISA court — whether you believe that is legitimate or not. I have a hard time with secret courts. I ran it past my attorney and asked, "Is there anyway we can fight this?" and he said "No. It is legitimate."

It was also different [from other warrants] because it was for monitoring. They wanted to come in and put in equipment on my network to monitor a single customer. The customer they were monitoring was a particular website that was very benign. It seems ridiculous to me. It was beyond absurd. It wasn't like a guns and ammo website.

They came in and showed me papers. It was a court order from the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) for the intercept, with the agent's name... and the court's information. I think it was three or four pages of text. They wouldn't let met me copy them. They let me take notes in regards to technical aspects of what they wanted to do.

We had to facilitate them to set up a duplicate port to tap in to monitor that customer's traffic. It was a 2U (two-unit) PC that we ran a mirrored ethernet port to.

[What we ended up with was] a little box in our systems room that was capturing all the traffic to this customer. Everything they were sending and receiving. (Ed note: it would have looked a lot like the picture below — a typical, black, two-unit server, unremarkable among many others.)

There was discussion [amongst employees] asking, "What is that box?"

I said, "It is something I am dealing with," and usually that was where it ended.

I didn't facilitate the install at the time; another engineer, who no longer works for me, did. I'm not sure it had any access to the internet, so they could manage it remotely, but if they requested that, we would have facilitated them. I'm sure it was just capturing the entire stream to hard disk for later analysis. After the initial install, they didn't come in again until it was removed.

It was open ended. I called six months into it and said, "How long is this going to go on?" and they said, "I don't know." I went on for nine months. If it were still there, I would have probably smashed it by now. There have been no [related] arrests that I have heard of.

I can't tell you all the details about it. I would love to tell you all the details, but I did get the gag order. I have probably told people too much. That was two years ago. If they want to come back and haunt me, fine.

These programs that violate the Bill of Rights can continue because people can't go out and say, "This is my experience, this is what happened to me, and I don't think it is right."

There is absolutely [a] need for secrecy when you are dealing with a criminal investigation. You don't want to tip off criminals being monitored. But you can't say, "You can never talk about this ever, for the rest of your life."

The FISA court should be a public court, and documents should be sealed for a set period of time, [to] let people audit the actions later.

We have received lots of federal requests. I don't think a lot of people realize just how much information is transmitted in the clear on the Internet.

We run a Tor node, in some ways as an affirmation of our belief that there are legitimate reasons for being anonymous on the internet. That is where the majority of requests come in from these days. Some illegal traffic comes in through Tor node and we get a federal request through the FBI or DOJ (Department of Justice). I respond to them and say that this is a Tor node [and therefore inaccessible, even to the ISP]; that is usually the end of it. They realize what that is, and it is a dead end.

I am in a little bit of a different situation than large companies. I don't have a board of directors to answer to. A number of [larger] companies are getting paid for the information. If you go establish a tap on Google's network, they will charge X amount per month. Usually the government pays it.

It isn't worth it to me to do that kind of wholesale monitoring at any price, and lot of companies disagree with that, because it is a financial issue for them. [They say] if it is worth this much profit, let's go for it. The return for standing up for people's constitutional rights and privacy is much greater and more satisfying.

]]>Justine Sharrockhttps://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/what-is-that-box-when-the-nsa-shows-up-at-your-internet-compFri, 19 Jul 2013 16:12:42 -0400<strong>For nine months, this Utah ISP had a little black box in the corner, courtesy of the NSA.</strong> Its owner tells his story.justinesharrocknonadultnonadult<i>When people say the feds are monitoring what people are doing online, what does that mean? How does that work? When, and where, does it start?
Pete Ashdown, CEO of XMission, an internet service provider in Utah, knows. He received a Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) warrant in 2010 mandating he let the feds monitor one of his customers, through his facility. He also received a broad gag order. In his own words:</i>
The first thing I do when I get a law enforcement request is look for a court signature on it. Then I pass it to my attorneys and say, "Is this legitimate? Does this qualify as a warrant?" If it does, then we will respond to it. We are very up front that we respond to warrants.
If it isn't, then the attorneys write back: "We don&#39;t believe it is in jurisdiction or is constitutional. We are happy to respond if you do get an FBI request in jurisdiction or you get a court order to do so."
The FISA request was a tricky one, because it was a warrant through the FISA court &mdash; whether you believe that is legitimate or not. I have a hard time with secret courts. I ran it past my attorney and asked, "Is there anyway we can fight this?" and he said "No. It is legitimate."
It was also different [from other warrants] because it was for monitoring. They wanted to come in and put in equipment on my network to monitor a single customer. The customer they were monitoring was a particular website that was very benign. It seems ridiculous to me. It was beyond absurd. It wasn&#39;t like a guns and ammo website.
They came in and showed me papers. It was a court order from the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) for the intercept, with the agent&#39;s name... and the court&#39;s information. I think it was three or four pages of text. They wouldn&#39;t let met me copy them. They let me take notes in regards to technical aspects of what they wanted to do.
We had to facilitate them to set up a duplicate port to tap in to monitor that customer&#39;s traffic. It was a 2U (two-unit) PC that we ran a mirrored ethernet port to.
[What we ended up with was] a little box in our systems room that was capturing all the traffic to this customer. Everything they were sending and receiving. (Ed note: it would have looked a lot like the picture below &mdash; a typical, black, two-unit server, unremarkable among many others.)nonadultnonadultThere was discussion [amongst employees] asking, "What is that box?"
I said, "It is something I am dealing with," and usually that was where it ended.
I didn't facilitate the install at the time; another engineer, who no longer works for me, did. I&#39;m not sure it had any access to the internet, so they could manage it remotely, but if they requested that, we would have facilitated them. I&#39;m sure it was just capturing the entire stream to hard disk for later analysis. After the initial install, they didn&#39;t come in again until it was removed.
It was open ended. I called six months into it and said, "How long is this going to go on?" and they said, "I don&#39;t know." I went on for nine months. If it were still there, I would have probably smashed it by now. There have been no [related] arrests that I have heard of.
I can&#39;t tell you all the details about it. I would love to tell you all the details, but I did get the gag order. I have probably told people too much. That was two years ago. If they want to come back and haunt me, fine.
These programs that violate the Bill of Rights can continue because people can&#39;t go out and say, "This is my experience, this is what happened to me, and I don&#39;t think it is right."
There is absolutely [a] need for secrecy when you are dealing with a criminal investigation. You don&#39;t want to tip off criminals being monitored. But you can&#39;t say, "You can never talk about this ever, for the rest of your life."
The FISA court should be a public court, and documents should be sealed for a set period of time, [to] let people audit the actions later.
We have received lots of federal requests. I don&#39;t think a lot of people realize just how much information is transmitted in the clear on the Internet.
We run a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)">Tor node</a>, in some ways as an affirmation of our belief that there are legitimate reasons for being anonymous on the internet. That is where the majority of requests come in from these days. Some illegal traffic comes in through Tor node and we get a federal request through the FBI or DOJ (Department of Justice). I respond to them and say that this is a Tor node [and therefore inaccessible, even to the ISP]; that is usually the end of it. They realize what that is, and it is a dead end.
I am in a little bit of a different situation than large companies. I don&#39;t have a board of directors to answer to. A number of [larger] companies are getting paid for the information. If you go establish a tap on Google&#39;s network, they will charge X amount per month. Usually the government pays it.
It isn&#39;t worth it to me to do that kind of wholesale monitoring at any price, and lot of companies disagree with that, because it is a financial issue for them. [They say] if it is worth this much profit, let&#39;s go for it. The return for standing up for people&#39;s constitutional rights and privacy is much greater and more satisfying.nonadultWorf Cover Bandshttps://www.buzzfeed.com/somenorcalguy/worf-cover-bands-e6x

]]>Jed Oliverhttps://www.buzzfeed.com/somenorcalguy/worf-cover-bands-e6xFri, 29 Jul 2011 15:25:54 -0400<b>Here's a blast from the Internet past: In 2005 <a href="http://www.shanenickerson.com/photos/worf_the_coverbands/index.html">Shane Nickerson</a> held a contest for album covers inspired by everyone's favorite Klingon Lieutenant Commander.</b> Just remember we're not looking for the best, here - we're looking for the Worfst. <em>Wah. Wah. Wahhhh.</em> (<a href="http://boingboing.net/2011/07/28/worf-album-covers.html">Via</a>)somenorcalguynonadult
<p>
<iframe src="/embed/sub/item-E8V?sb=119282221&cb=1513223574" width="1" height="1" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p><small></small></p>
nonadultU.S. House Passes Bill Requiring ISPs To Track All Online Activitieshttps://www.buzzfeed.com/davidshares/govt-passes-bill-requiring-your-isp-to-track-all-y-3caj
The House of Representatives yesterday passed an extremely disturbing bill that everyone needs to know about. The bill, H.R. 1981 requires your Internet Service Provider (ISP) to track and record for 12 months all your online activities such as what web sites you visit and what content you post online. Read the full story and find out what you can do to help prevent this bill from becoming law here.

]]>David Shareshttps://www.buzzfeed.com/davidshares/govt-passes-bill-requiring-your-isp-to-track-all-y-3cajFri, 29 Jul 2011 14:44:45 -0400<b>The House of Representatives yesterday passed an extremely disturbing bill that everyone needs to know about.</b> The bill, H.R. 1981 requires your Internet Service Provider (ISP) to track and record for 12 months all your online activities such as what web sites you visit and what content you post online. Read the full story and find out what you can do to help prevent this bill from becoming law <a href="http://bitshare.tumblr.com/post/8218716942/govt-passes-bill-requiring-your-isp-to-track-all-your"><b>here</b></a>.davidsharesnonadultVerizon Blocks 4Chanhttps://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/verizon-blocks-4chan
Ruh-Roh. The status blog for 4Chan (the evil heart of the Internet) is reporting that they have been “explicitly blocked” by Verizon.

]]>Jack Shepherdhttps://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/verizon-blocks-4chanMon, 08 Feb 2010 12:01:51 -0500Ruh-Roh. The status blog for <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/tag/4chan">4Chan</a> (the evil heart of the Internet) is <a href="http://status.4chan.org/">reporting</a> that they have been "explicitly blocked" by Verizon.expresidentnonadult